🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 6, 12:44, festusby...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On 6 Jan, 10:22, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 2007, 10:15, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > An international team of leading philosophers and physicists:
>
> > > http://www.routledge-philosophy.com/books/Einstein-Relativity-and-Absolute-Simultaneity-isbn9780415701747
> > > "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
> > > original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
> > > physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
> > > Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
> > > paradigm of the relativistic concept of time."
>
> > > A distinguished member of the international team of leading
> > > philosophers and physicists:
>
> > >http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/ccallender/
> > > "On Finding 'Real' Time in Quantum Mechanics" (draft) Absolute Simultaneity. (Eds) W.L. Craig and Q. Smith. NY: Oxford University
> > > Press, 2007.
> > > Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
> > > respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
> > > time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction.1  Lorentz attributed these
> > > effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
> > > Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
> > > radiation, not to spacetime structure.  On this view, Lorentz
> > > invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
> > > the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
> > > purely kinematical.  The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
> > > Newtonian, not Minkowskian.  Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian
> > > spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
> > > structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
> > > spacetime's many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame).  On
> > > this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
> > > uniquely decomposable into space and time."
>
> > > The problem is not that leading philosophers and physicists claim
> > > there is no relativity of simultaneity. Leading philosophers and
> > > physicists are just looking for a new money-spinner that does not
> > > involve Einstein's idiocies. The problem is that there is NO REACTION
> > > in Einstein zombie world. Science has died. Irreversibly.
>
> >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0604/0604010v1.pdf
> > Absolute simultaneity: Special relativity without light signals or
> > synchronised clocks, J.H.Field, Departement de Physique Nucleaire et
> > Corpusculaire, Universite de Geneve, E-mail: john.fi...@cern.ch
> > "Using only the reciprocity postulate, it is demonstrated that the
> > spatial separation of two objects, at rest in some inertial frame, is
> > invariant. This result holds in both Galilean and special relativity.
> > A corollary is that there are no "length contraction" or associated
> > "relativity of simultaneity" effects in the latter theory."
>
> > Incredible. NO REACTION in Einstein zombie world. Science has died.
> > Irreversibly.
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> Dear Pentcho
>
> Are you an Eintstein bruiser, a jew basher, or just out to bash
> anyboby who believes in tested science?.
> What exactly is your motive here?
> I am guessing you just looking for attention, give your mummy a call.

I am just wondering why Craig Callender, John Field and many other
Einsteinians think there is no relativity of simultaneity, no length
contraction, no Minkowski space-time etc. I even suspect ALL CLEVER
Einsteinians think so. What do YOU think?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com